New York's 18th District Democratic Incumbent Nita Lowey's Republican opponent, Jim Russell, wrote an essay (PDF) for The Occidental Quarterly (a far right newsletter most consider to be extremely white supremacist in nature) in 2001, that among other things makes these statements:

Quote:

“(T.S.) Eliot described some conditions for an optimal society: ‘The population should be homogeneous. . . . What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable."

Quote:

"The importance of applying eugenic measures in the West becomes evident from Richard Lynn’s recent work on Dysgenics and his just-released seminal work Eugenics: A Reassessment."

Quote:

“While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about “bringing us all together”, and how “diversity is our strength,” it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart.”

Wait... it gets better.

Quote:

One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting mechanism is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact. The most serious implication of human sexual imprinting for our genetic future is that it would establish the destructiveness of school integration, especially in the middle and high-school years. One can only wonder to what degree the advocates of school integration, such as former NAACP attorney Jack Greenberg, were conscious of this scientific concept. It also compounds the culpability of media moguls who deliberately popularize miscegenation in films directed toward adolescents and pre-adolescents. In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.

I'm waiting for Nick to come in and explain why this candidate is not, in fact, racist, and is the best candidate for the district.

Edit: I didn't notice that this was my 10,000th post.

Edit#2 - Soon after this story broke, the Occidental Quarterly took down the essay in question from its website archive, presumably to hide the truth about this candidate. Fortunately, I had kept a copy, and I have provided a new link.

\t
Paranoid and suspicious, Nixon, who felt that he had been betrayed by his coverage in the Los Angeles Times, named Paul Conrad on his enemies list. Here, Nixon sits surrounded by the scrolls of this list, his own worst enemy.

Los Angeles Times (1973)
Courtesy of Tribune Media Services

Nixon as Richard II
Paul Conrad
Los Angeles Times (1973)

\t

Quote:

Facing his impending impeachment and an administration marred by the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon crucifies himself on a large cross in this Easter Sunday cartoon that the Los Angeles Times refused to run, believing it was too offensive. In PAUL CONRAD: Drawing Fire, narrator Tom Brokaw says, Being unafraid of speaking truth to power is what Paul Conrad was all about, a fact soon to be made obvious to his ultimate nemesis: Richard Nixon.

Los Angeles Times (1977)
Courtesy of Tribune Media Services

Quote:

This cartoon features Nixon caught up in spider webs spelling out the names of his aides that were providing evidence against him during the Watergate investigations. John Carroll, former Los Angeles Times editor, explained: You have to look at it twice to figure out what it is, and when you do, its just very striking.

LOS ANGELES (AP) For more than half a century, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Paul Conrad poked fun at politicians, taking on presidents from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush.

Conrad, who died Saturday at age 86, won the coveted prize three times for his efforts but he also made Richard Nixons enemies list.

He died at his home in the Los Angeles suburb of Rancho Palos Verdes surrounded by his family, his son David Conrad said. The death was from natural causes, David Conrad said, but he did not offer specifics.

Conrad worked in the heyday of political cartoonists, and he was among the elite. His three decades at the Los Angeles Times helped the newspaper raise its national profile.

His total of three Pulitzers is matched by just two other cartoonists in the Post-World War II era.

New York's 18th District Democratic Incumbent Nita Lowey's Republican opponent, Jim Russell, wrote an essay (PDF) for The Occidental Quarterly (a far right newsletter most consider to be extremely white supremacist in nature) in 2001, that among other things makes these statements:

Wait... it gets better.

I'm waiting for Nick to come in and explain why this candidate is not, in fact, racist, and is the best candidate for the district.

Edit: I didn't notice that this was my 10,000th post.

You're actually lucky I caught this as all Tonton. I've clearly been having some very busy spells away from here.

I tried clicking on your link. It brough me to the website but not to any PDF. I'll be happy to read it and comment.

HOWEVER, I can tell you before looking at it that the entire beginning of the 20th century is easily filled with all manner of leftist rhetoric that makes what you just posted completely tame in comparison. One of the many things I'm doing right now is finishing my master's and the class I'm taking covers the history and main figures of education in the United States with regard to creation of curriculum. To be polite, they were mostly a bunch of folks who justified racism using eugenics based of evolutionay beliefs.

The thinking behind it is still much of what drives the Democratic agenda today. That said I'll still comment on your link when it reappears but I'm simply trying to make you aware that it exists and is very easy to find on the left. The whole philosophy of top down decision making relates to elites telling the less capable how to live their lives. The thinking about them being less capable and mostly being various skin tones that aren't white isn't hard to find at all.

No. I'm claiming you gave a really simplistic answer that really doesn't adress the original question.

Actually it does. You just won't accept it. The answer is you pay for less things. You cut spending. You stop paying for things that the government shouldn't be paying for. It is that simple. It might be hard to achieve, but it really is that simple. Unless of course you're begging the question, which is possible.

Actually it does. You just won't accept it. The answer is you pay for less things. You cut spending. You stop paying for things that the government shouldn't be paying for. It is that simple. It might be hard to achieve, but it really is that simple

Quote:

The answer is you pay for less things. You cut spending. You stop paying for things that the government shouldn't be paying for.

Uh yeah. That'll help. Hard doesn't begin to discribe it. many would suffer in what is already a bad situation. What do you think that would do to the economy? People who are already suffering and doing with less would have nothing. This where I parted company with the Libertarains before. They have this great idea that taxes are evil ( I don't like them either ) but don't have a good replacement for them. " Cut spending " Stop goverment intrusion ". Those are easy things to say but when you look at the fine print for an alternative method for keeping things going there's nothing there.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Uh huh. If not how would you achieve this without throwing people to the wolves?

That would be that " Hard to achieve " part. Like I said this is where I parted comapany with the Libertarians because they just couldn't get past this one. And MJ this is doubly true in the current situation.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Ever heard the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?" Any idea how long its been around? Do you know why that phrase is so common and has been around for so long?

Because that's the way it works in a free-market system!

The reason it works that way is because the rich have the power. They don't want to allow their profits to "trickle down" if they can find an alternative. And there's always an alternative when they have the power. If there were no minimum wage, combined with no welfare, for instance, the unemployment rate would be absolutely fantastic news for the rich. The unemployment rate would FORCE the poor to take $1 an hour jobs wihout benefits, because their alternative would be living on the street and eating from garbage cans. And this is what Libertarians want. Fantastic.

Ever heard the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?" Any idea how long its been around? Do you know why that phrase is so common and has been around for so long?

Because that's the way it works in a free-market system!

The reason it works that way is because the rich have the power. They don't want to allow their profits to "trickle down" if they can find an alternative. And there's always an alternative when they have the power. If there were no minimum wage, combined with no welfare, for instance, the unemployment rate would be absolutely fantastic news for the rich. The unemployment rate would FORCE the poor to take $1 an hour jobs wihout benefits, because their alternative would be living on the street and eating from garbage cans.

Exactly.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Ever heard the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer?" Any idea how long its been around? Do you know why that phrase is so common and has been around for so long?

Because that's the way it works in a free-market system!

The reason it works that way is because the rich have the power. They don't want to allow their profits to "trickle down" if they can find an alternative. And there's always an alternative when they have the power. If there were no minimum wage, combined with no welfare, for instance, the unemployment rate would be absolutely fantastic news for the rich. The unemployment rate would FORCE the poor to take $1 an hour jobs wihout benefits, because their alternative would be living on the street and eating from garbage cans.

The top 400, all of whom are worth at least $1 billion, saw their combined wealth increase 8 percent this year, to the dizzying total of $1.37 trillion, according to analysis from CNN.

Meanwhile, according to data released last week by the Federal Reserve, the net worth of American households and non-profits in the second quarter of this year plunged 2.8 percent, or $1.52 trillion, from the previous quarter, to settle at $53.5 trillion.